PROTESTORS AREN'T ANTI-WAR, They are anti-Bush and anti-American

[1Old Pro]

Can we face the truth?

These peacenick protestors who can't explain why they are against a war saying:

• Give peace a chance
• Let the inspectors have more time
• Blix says he's making progress
• A war will make us more enemies
• It's all about oil

They don't have any serious arguments for opposition.

The fact is, they are ANTI-BUSH FIRST, ANTI-AMERICAN SECOND, and protesting the war just gives them a reason to publicaly oppose Bush.

I recently called in a local talk radio show where the host was debating to protestors. They had no arguments, just platitudes. I asked them if they weren't so much anti-war as they were anti-Bush. I asked them if they voted for Bush, of course they did not. They "bristeled" at the question because they were flushed out.

Bottom line, the "protestors" are mainly Gore voters and Nadar voters who want to protest Bush. The war gives them that vehivle to protest. If protestors were polled, 99% would have to admit they they did not vote for Bush. If the anti-war movement had any good reasons to oppose war they would be more like 50%-50% voting for Bush.

CONCLUSION: what we have here is anti-Bush, anti-American protestors. Ask them if they voted for Bush and find out for yourself.

[expatpat]

Indeed, they were very happy when Clinton was bombing the Yogoslavs without permission from the UN.

[1Old Pro]

Yep, it's simply an excuse to rally against Bush and American values.

[rickmichaels]

Very true. None of these dirtbags protested when India and Pakistan were about to nuke each other recently. What about Mugabe killing farmers in Zimbabwe? Not a peep. What about Angola? El Salvador? East Timor? Colombia? Uganda? Rwanda? Nicaragua?

[geedee]

I would like to add one more category . . . pro-Saddam. These loonies never fail to amaze me. They always chant about the "innocents" who will be killed? What about the "innocents" who have ALREADY been killed and WILL be killed in the future if So-Damn-Dumb-Saddam is allowed to stay? Nary a whisper about them at any of these protests.

[JeeperFreeper]

Yep. On the money. People are starting to figure it out, too. The main stream linberal/progressive media won't, but thanks to media like this one, the word gets out.

[1Old Pro]

Yes, this angers me. The anti-Bush peaceniks have forgotten about 9-11.

[TShaunK]

That is the truth, thats all it is.You wouldn't hear any bitching at all if this was the war heros idea,if Clinton initiated this they would be naming airports after him.
The thing about it is the left and the dems are petrified at the thought of GW being successful, and rather see harm come to our country than to see GW sccessful and thats the truth,they will put politics in front of security.

[Dr. Frank fan]

Basically, I agree with you. The vast majority of protesters cannot logically explain why they are so against this war. It doesn't add up. You can't even explain it by saying that "they're leftists", because true leftists would be holding signs saying "Liberate Iraq!" Something else is going on and I'm afraid it's very basic: they hate Bush, Bush wants war, therefore war bad.

The only other possible factor I can think of is that being "anti-war", in and of itself, is a pleasant moral posture which allows these people to stroke their own egos with no personal sacrifice, or even thought. By this view, some of the protesters went and stood on the streets holding signs because it made them feel good about themselves, and allowed them to feel superior to other people.

I'm not sure which impulse was more prevalent. Also, both impulses (anti-Bush, and Ego Trip) are probably present in a significant number of "anti-war" folks.

[Dr. Frank fan]

The thing about it is the left and the dems are petrified at the thought of GW being successful,

Good point. This is another factor. We often forget just how traumatized the Left was by Bush Sr.'s high approval ratings in '91 after the first Gulf War, because he ended up squandering it.

But for a while in '91 the Left was in complete shock. They wouldn't stop talking about Bush's numbers, and how the war affected them. They remember this, now.

[finnman69]

People who burn flags are Anti-American and America Haters. There were lots of burning US flags last Saturday.

[TheDon]

I've noticed they don't seem to be behaving in manner consistent with peace, but rather seem to be trying to foment hate.

[DownWithGreenspan]

Right on the money! What we need is a war against THEM. Exterminate the scum who live INSIDE our borders before we worry about exterminating the scum outside.

DWG

[RugerM77]

In that James Moran town meeting on Iraq about a week ago with Victoria Clarke and a Marine General being inundated with anti-war stuff-One of the protestors referenced the supposed battle plan that involves 800 cruise missiles and all the civilians that will kill.
I wonder if she knows or cares that Clinton used 450 cruise missiles on Iraq in 1998-(I have seen that number here many times)-Really, other than incrementally what is the difference between 450 and 800?

[Jael]

Which American values would those be? Free Speech or something along those lines?

[rickmichaels]

The only other possible factor I can think of is that being "anti-war", in and of itself, is a pleasant moral posture which allows these people to stroke their own egos with no personal sacrifice, or even thought.

Damn right. Remember Martin Sheen sleeping on the sidewalk for one night a few years ago to supposedly demonstrate solidarity with homeless people? What did it accomplish other than Martin and all the other wacko Hollyweird liberaloids feeling good about themselves? Jack sh*t, that's what.

[GOP_1900AD]

Beyond that, these groups are overtly supported by the still-vigorous Communist movement. Granted, not all the protestors are Communists themselves, but at best, they are useful idiots and dupes.

As for the response, thus far, to these borderline revolutionary outpourings attempting to create fervor for a Marxist putsch (e.g. "We need a regime change") I am very concerned that our current structures of AUTHORITY (now THERE is a word that the Baby Boomers hate!...) are inherently timid and conservative in their approach. It seems that COINTELPRO was so badly critiqued by the Left, and so badly defended by the Right; that our current governing institutions are incapable of leveraging anything from that experience. In truth, during the 1960s and 1970s, it is quite true (as proven by the Venona papers and other sources) that the KGB and other forces of anti-Westernism were in fact the underpinning of our youth explosion and massive "anti-war" protests. Therefore, COINTELPRO was well justified, and, if anything, insufficient in both scope and action. Unfortunately, instead of coming to grips with this reality, public discourse avoids it, and therefore, investigation and prosecution of the current traitors and those promoting the overthrow of what is left of our governing institutions is not done for fear of being labelled "fascist." Naturally, it does not help that most currently in positions of leadership in both the public and private sectors are themselves products of the 1960s and 1970s campus environments. Even those nomimally on "the Right" by current standards seem to be prone to taking a Flower Child approach to things rather than a more energetic approach that might have been taken by our leadership if similar things were occuring, say, 100 years ago!

[SoCalConservative]

With all due respect, and I mean that sincerely, a lot of like-minded people were saying the same thing about Hitler in the '30's! Then it happened and millions and millions of dead later, the very same people sure were wrong.

Now, suppose we pull back and this war was all called off....at the behest of folks like you. Then, say a year from now...two years from now, Saddam and whatever cohorts he has, pull off the a large attack against our Country and many of our citizens are killed?

I'm sorry, I hope we don't take that risk. I'm not calling you anti-American, I'm calling you just plain wrong!

[dfwgator]

1. Iraq is no immediate threat.

Really? Well I should think that if you have such intimate knowledge of what Iraq's intentions are you ought to alert the President as to the fact, don'cha think? Most people thought that Japan was no immediate threat....on December 6th, 1941.